Observation of Canopy Interception Loss in an Abandoned Coniferous Plantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
近年, 管理放棄された人工林が増加している。蒸発散量は水資源量に大きな影響を与える要素であるが, 管理放棄人工林での計測事例と判断できるものはこれまでになかった。本研究では, 九州大学福岡演習林に設置された御手洗水試験流域の管理放棄されたヒノキ人工林において樹冠遮断量の計測を行い, 他の針葉樹林と比較した。本試験地の樹冠遮断率 (樹冠遮断量/降水量) は24.9%となった。他試験地の針葉樹林の樹冠遮断率は立木密度とともに増加する傾向があり, 本試験地の樹冠遮断率はその分布の範囲内に収まった。このことは, 従来報告されている樹冠遮断率と立木密度の関係が, 管理放棄人工林に対しても成り立つかどうかを判断する上で有益な情報となるであろう。
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".